Holder and Sebelius trot out the auto-insurance canard

posted at 10:14 am on December 14, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

You have to feel for the editors of the Washington Post. The day after a federal judge rules ObamaCare’s mandate unconstitutional, they get an opportunity to let the woman who runs it and the man who directed its defense publish an essay rebutting the critics dancing on the mandate’s grave. Once the editors receive it, though, they see that the argument relies on a canard that has been thoroughly debunked for months — and renders the entire exercise useless. Do the editors kill the celebrity column, or run with it and hope no one notices?

Everyone wants health care to be affordable and available when they need it. But we have to stop imposing extra costs on people who carry insurance, and that means everyone who can afford coverage needs to carry minimum health coverage starting in 2014.

If we want to prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, it’s essential that everyone have coverage. Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after they got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage would be unaffordable, and responsible drivers would be priced out of the market.

The same is true for health insurance. Without an individual responsibility provision, controlling costs and ending discrimination against people with preexisting conditions doesn’t work.

This is such a bad argument that it staggers the imagination why the administration would still be making it. Drivers carry required insurance to cover damage done to others, not themselves, for one thing. It’s not applicable at all. Furthermore, states impose the insurance requirement, not the federal government, because states license drivers and vehicles. Driving is, after all, a voluntary activity conducted on public property (roads); there is no requirement for licensing or insurance for those who drive only on their private property. People who don’t drive on public roads aren’t required to buy a license or the insurance.

There are other problems with this analogy as well. Those who do have auto insurance only file claims when significant damage occurs. Auto insurance doesn’t pay for routine maintenance, like oil changes, lube jobs, and tire rotation. That’s why auto insurance is relatively affordable.

Also, auto insurance is priced to risk. If a driver lives in a high-crime area, then the premiums will rise to cover the risks associated with theft. If they drive badly (get moving violations and accidents), premiums will go up, or in some cases, the insurer will drop the driver. Policies are priced for risk according to age as well; the youngest and oldest drivers pay more due to their propensity for causing losses. Those who drive well and present a lower risk get rewarded with lower premiums. Right now, the federal government is preventing insurers in some instances from risk-pricing health insurance to impose government-approved fairness. That means we all pay more, removing the incentive to lower risk.

Finally, let’s use another related analogy: fire insurance. If we forced insurers to write comprehensive policies on burning homes, we would have no insurers left in the market. However, Holder and Sebelius want health insurers to do the same thing — and need the mandate to force all of us to assume that risk through the higher premiums that subsidize it. And, by the way, the government is doing exactly what Holder derogates in the essay — forcing insurers to write policies after the accident/fire/illness.

The need to reform the health-care economic model is real. Holder, Sebelius, and Barack Obama have gone in the wrong direction through the imposition of government mandates and the calcification of the third-party payer model. We need to break that model for routine health maintenance and return insurance to the role of indemnifying against substantial loss and end the tax incentives for the market distortion of the employer-based health care model.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

I have several non-political (apolitical?) friends who I sometimes bounce things off of to gauge general reaction. This argument is one that they ‘get’. It’s an easy association and superficially, it makes sense to them. Once they think about it a bit or I put it to them that they are not forced to buy a car, it falls apart a bit, but overall I can see why they are sticking with it.

Dash on December 14, 2010 at 10:44 AM

That’s why I think they’re pushing this argument as well. Although there are legal reasons why auto insurance and health care insurance are distinguishable, from a superficial perspective, there’s probably not much difference except for cost, I guess.

I don’t understand the distinction about how you have car insurance to protect other people. Don’t see how that’s relevant. I agree with the other points.

Excellent point. I lived in VA once and it was such a wonderful place to live… not a whole lot of gubmint overlords back then.

This entire 2000 page monstrosity should be repealed and replaced with a six page document that allows health companies to sell across state lines providing that they can meet their fiscal duties to do so; pools of healthy young individuals who can elect catastrophic coverage and contribute to HSA’s for ancillary care; mandate each and every “medicaid” recipient be interviewed on an annual basis to determine the basis for their “neediness”; allow Medicare recipients to pool resources into risk pools that pay doctor’s fees at non-welfare levels; kick all illegals off of medicare and medicaid; mandate annual audits for medical equipment ($1900 walkers, $1200 pottie chairs) and provide incentives for Medicare recipients to purchase these DME items from private businesses and reward them with premium rebates.

If auto insurance was required like the health mandate then even my wife’s mother, who does not drive or own a car, would be required to carry auto insurance, because you never know when she may need to drive a car in an emergency and then crashes the vehicle.

The more applicable analogy, I think, is Social Security. If the Bush Administration had succeeded in privatizing Social Security, that your money would go into a private mutual fund of your choice (or whatever) instead of paying into Social Security, I don’t know if anyone would have said that’s unconstitutional. Maybe it’s stupid and maybe it’s not, but the fact that you’re able to choose from private companies and tailor your own plan with your own level of risk is certainly restricts your liberty less than being forced into paying into SS instead.

But that seems to be the same argument being advanced against the individual mandate. It sounds to me like people are saying that the individual mandate is unconstitutional only because it forces you to buy something from a private company. So then single payer is permissible, and a less restrictive option to the people is then an unconstitutional abuse of Congress’ power, whereas the more restrictive option is not.

That strikes me as an absurd result. If one of the purposes of the Constitution is to restraint the federal government, then those restraints should not be completely arbitrary.

I don’t understand the distinction about how you have car insurance to protect other people. Don’t see how that’s relevant. I agree with the other points.

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 10:57 AM

Because, you dunderhead, all 50 states require LIABILITY. My home state, and I believe forty-some others, ONLY require liability. If I have a minimum-by-law policy, I’m off the hook for most of the damage I do to others, their vehicles, property, and person, but the damage to my car and my medical bills isn’t covered.

I don’t understand the distinction about how you have car insurance to protect other people. Don’t see how that’s relevant. I agree with the other points.

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 10:57 AM

You are driving down the road minding your own business. I ram my car right into your rear end causing damage. Do you expect me to pay for my mistake? Or would you get out of your car, look at the damage and give me a hug?

Not too surprising though, is it? They just want what they want. They don’t care how they get it.

Islamic fundamentalists should be proud of how these progressive guys focus on the goal and pursue it with myopic, unwavering zealocity. (Yes, I just created that word. It’s a portmanteau, actually. Like it?)

from a superficial perspective, there’s probably not much difference except for cost, I guess.

I don’t understand the distinction about how you have car insurance to protect other people. Don’t see how that’s relevant. I agree with the other points.

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 10:57 AM

What you don’t get (or won’t) is that I can buy car insurance only to protect an accident caused by someone else.
It was a protection act because so many people were getting into accidents then not paying for damages, so for the “privilege” of driving, I have to buy insurance…you are saying for the “privilege” of living I have to buy health insurance?
Another slight difference, bad drivers are punished with higher rates…bad health is not. Try getting car insurance with a couple of DUI’s…
I am also not required to purchase car insurance, but can put up a bond to insure that I pay for damages.
If you don’t own a car, you don’t have to buy insurance, you are not forced to purchase insurance.
The analogy, except for the very simple minded–basically the bumper sticker thinkers, it works so they will stay with the analogy, you have proved that.
The rest of us will laugh at their lame attempt…

If one of the purposes of the Constitution is to restraint the federal government, then those restraints should not be completely arbitrary.

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 11:03 AM

That is the primary purpose of the Constitution. The job of the federal government isn’t to manage the economy, or make sure people have health insurance, or make sure people eat right … it’s to protect liberty and the nation.

That’s why I find these arguments in favor of this absolutely mind blowing.

I think most states also require PIP(Personal Injury Protection), it pays for your hospital and doctor bills up to a certain limit carried in the policy, then you are on your own.

belad on December 14, 2010 at 11:08 AM

My home state does not, but liability riders can protect you for a certain amount of the other guy’s medical expenses, depending on the individual policy. The number of choices out there really is staggering.

You are driving down the road minding your own business. I ram my car right into your rear end causing damage. Do you expect me to pay for my mistake? Or would you get out of your car, look at the damage and give me a hug?

Key West Reader on December 14, 2010 at 11:05 AM

My point is, if the argument is that a mandate is impermissible, then how is the *reason* for the mandate relevant? If Eric Holder could prove that paying for your own insurance actually lowers the costs of everyone else’s insurance (which, in an ideal world, it would), then are you saying the individual mandate is then constitutional? I don’t see that kind of thing in my copy of the Constitution.

Obamas Health Car is in the ditch. I like the plain English common sense explanations provided by Ed, and I have used these very arguments to my liberal/union member friends. Not only that but IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You cant penalize inactivity the way they wrote it. Even worse, why the hell are they reforming health insurance. I thought Health Care, primarily the costs, was the problem. i.e, why does a semi private room cost $6000 a day? $10 a day for unused toilet paper, or $5.00 soda. What is driving these rediculous costs? Malpractice Insurance? C’mon. When I lost my insuracne and became a consumer recently, I discovered my $400 prescripts could be had for $40 for a 90 day supply. I went ape shit on my Dr because I paid the $400 3 times out of my pocket. The pharmacy explained it to me. My Dr visits also only cost $75 after I told them I want to know the price up front. I learned that when you have insurance, everything is billed double, and then they discount. For one bill, for my kid, I said, wheres my discount? She said if you can pay today its 50% off. Whats that tell you? One more. When insured, my Dr was doing the blood work and those bills were $800 plus. Now that Im self insured, I can get that done at the local university for $28 freakin dollars. This is what is wrong with the healthcare system. We do not shop when we have plastic cards and somebody else has to worry about the bill. ANd every provider overbills, by double in most cases, knowing there will be discounts for insurers, and especially for the state reimbursments. Its all a scam. I was denied do to pre existing hi blood pressure. Thats easy to fix with cheap meds. Now, my 4 dr vists a year, and my four prescripts a year cost me about $525. I was paying $860 per mo for COBRA to keep my union insurance. Its all a big scam and the providers, insureres, and state are all complicit. Sorry for the rant.

If one of the purposes of the Constitution is to restraint the federal government, then those restraints should not be completely arbitrary.

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Not “one of” but the primary reason, is to restrain the feds from doing what they are doing…the constitution was designed specifically to limit the power of the feds, not enhance the power.
You should try reading it sometime, it’s not what you think it is…

Heavy sigh. When GWB proposed allowing individuals to CHOOSE to elect SS or utilize the private market to build their own fund or they could elect a combination of both for their own financial security, it was a CHOICE. One could choose to continue to contribute to the SS ponzi scheme knowing they’ll never see a dime because the whole darned thing is bankrupt anyway.

GWB offered a CHOICE. GWB did not “MANDATE” in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America. Unlike the current squatter we’re stuck with until 2012.

Heavy sigh. When GWB proposed allowing individuals to CHOOSE to elect SS or utilize the private market to build their own fund or they could elect a combination of both for their own financial security, it was a CHOICE. One could choose to continue to contribute to the SS ponzi scheme knowing they’ll never see a dime because the whole darned thing is bankrupt anyway.

So you’re fine with the individual mandate, but you want a public option too? *Then* it would be constitutional? Silly.

If it’s not spelled out in the constitution, the states CAN do it and the federal government CAN’T. Period. Romneycare in Massachusetts was a horrible socialist idea. That doesn’t mean it was unconstitutional. But it was socialist, and it was and is a failure.

So you’re fine with the individual mandate, but you want a public option too? *Then* it would be constitutional? Silly.

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 11:14 AM

Or we could just leave the government out of it completely and let the states handle medical insurance the same way they handle auto insurance now. If Auto insurance is the model, and the federal government has no business in auto insurance, how does it have any business in medical insurance?

GWB offered a CHOICE. GWB did not “MANDATE” in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America. Unlike the current squatter we’re stuck with until 2012.

Key West Reader on December 14, 2010 at 11:12 AM

Rino is grasping for any analogy that makes sense to him…but he will ignore your common sense and accurate response.
If he was a man, he would state you were right and he made an error in using that analogy.

You haven’t read the constitution, that is obvious or you would understand that it was created to limit government intrusion.

right2bright on December 14, 2010 at 11:14 AM

Quick history lesson for you dinguses: The Constitution was created because the Articles of Confederation did not give the federal government enough power. The intent of the Constitution was to expand the role of the federal government. There is a lot of limiting language in there as well, and that should be followed, but to say the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the role of federal government is 100% wrong.

Listen honey child… Why don’t you advocate for whittling down the Medicaid rolls? If I’m 29, healthy and strong, why should I pay for a health policy when my counterpart who is 29 healthy and strong gets free Medicaid, lives on public assistance, collects the welfare, gets free housing, foodstamps and all the other goodies?

Does that tingle in your brain just a lil?

/BTW.. Honey child is a kind reference so please don’t be offended :o)

Even if you agree with the ridiculous Wickard v. Filburn ruling, this is even worse and Wickard isn’t on point. In Wickard, the farmer was choosing to engage in an activity , that the court used to play an early version of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.

In this case, the government wants to force you to engage in economic activity and purchase a product whether you want to or not. They are saying that your mere existence is a form of economic activity that they can regulate.

If that’s the case, then there’s nothing the government can’t force you to do and the Commerce Clause has negated whatever rights you thought you had.

Quick history lesson for you dinguses: The Constitution was created because the Articles of Confederation did not give the federal government enough power. The intent of the Constitution was to expand the role of the federal government. There is a lot of limiting language in there as well, and that should be followed, but to say the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the role of federal government is 100% wrong.

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 11:16 AM

But what you leave out is that there were nearly fist-fights over just how much power the government should have. With very few exceptions, the founding fathers were more worried about giving the federal government too much power rather than not enough.

The idea behind enhancing the powers inherent in the Articles of Confederation was that the colonies, at that point, were little more than 13 independent nation states prone to all manners of ungodly diplomatic and trade wars. In order to prevent this from happening in the future, the philosophy behind the constitution was hashed out (after much fighting and arguing) to be, “The federal government can do what the constitution says it can do, and no more. The rest is left up to the states and the people.”

Besides the unconstitutional problem, the more people learn about the implementation of this monstrosity the worse it gets. I have a friend who has never had insurance due to a pre-exisitng problem and now he needs major surgery and has no idea how to pay for it. The extremely liberal physician told him, no problem, Obama made it so you can not be denied. OK, so what was the result? He can’t be denied but the cost is too high for my friend to afford.
The bottom line is that people still believe that this is a free of charge system but there is absolutely no way it can be.
The best thing about these court challenges is it is keeping the light on the cockroaches.

The fact is that the framers of our Constitution wanted one country of several states, not a bunch of states acting as individual countries. In that aspect, they only vested the federal government with what they saw as a bare minimum of power necessary to keep the United States actually united in more than just name.

Besides the unconstitutional problem, the more people learn about the implementation of this monstrosity the worse it gets. I have a friend who has never had insurance due to a pre-exisitng problem and now he needs major surgery and has no idea how to pay for it. The extremely liberal physician told him, no problem, Obama made it so you can not be denied. OK, so what was the result? He can’t be denied but the cost is too high for my friend to afford.
The bottom line is that people still believe that this is a free of charge system but there is absolutely no way it can be.
The best thing about these court challenges is it is keeping the light on the cockroaches.

ORconservative on December 14, 2010 at 11:22 AM

And I bet that your friend is going to find out that if he would have figured out a way to enter a private high-risk pool, it would have been expensive over the long-term, but less so in the short-term than the disaster he faces now. Sad, but it’s an inevitability that more situations will be cropping up like this as the years go by and Obamacare is closer to implementation.

I think this is hilarious… Do these people have any concept of the term ‘risk’ and what it means?

The bottom line is that they want control of the health care industry and they will trot out stupid analogies like this to the idiot masses who are the democratic voters. Many of obama’s supporters don’t pay taxes, don’t insure their vehicles, don’t own their homes and are likely already on Medicaid. The rest of obama’s supporters are liberal academic snobs who have never held a job or met a payroll.

If that’s the case, then there’s nothing the government can’t force you to do and the Commerce Clause has negated whatever rights you thought you had.

RadClown on December 14, 2010 at 11:19 AM

I really think the AG and people are missing the best way to attack the mandate. And that is amendment 13th grounds.

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

what else is the mandate but involuntary servitude. The government telling us we must work to enrich a private insurance company or face fines and possible jail. there is no other word for it.

In fact most of crony capitalism can be attacked on 13th amendment grounds. The government by picking winners and losers in the free market are making the consumers involuntary servants of those companies they pick…..

I don’t understand the distinction about how you have car insurance to protect other people. Don’t see how that’s relevant. I agree with the other points.

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 10:57 AM

How about if Obamacare ONLY required you to buy health insurance for communicable diseases…and NO other health care? You would be free to choose where and when to insure (or not) against all other conditions which did not affect other persons.

THEN it would be more like auto insurance (but still not the same), and would be vastly less expensive.

But there are still many, many other problems with Obamacare:

Usurpation of state controls, repeal of medical privacy, lack of choice, death panels, health decisions by political appointees who are not doctors, IRS involvement, etc., etc., etc.

The Democrats used “health care” as an excuse to totally control our lives and impose government on every aspect of our lives. All of these provisions in Obamacare which are irrelevant to actual health care never belonged in the bill in the first place: it was a vehicle to sneak through hundreds of things which could never be passed on their own merits, or if our elected representatives bothered to READ THE BILL in the first place!!!

His social security reforms would be unconstitutional according to you guys.

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 11:26 AM

Don’t put words in my mouth, you douchebag. His social security reforms consisted of giving people a choice to invest in private accounts. Constitutional or not, I’m just saying that’s not statist on its face. And I also merely pointed out that his reforms got shot down by a Republican-led congress. You are quite the mental midget if everything I say can bolster your argument.

Except his proposed social security reforms which were pronounced DoA by a congress that was, at the time, still controlled by Republicans. Plenty of blame to go around.

gryphon202 on December 14, 2010 at 11:24 AM

the reason GWB SS reforms failed is that bush tried to use crony capitalism. He like every freaking statist tried to pick winners and losers. Wall street should not get rich over our retirement. Personal accounts are ok. I think its the only way to go but the governemnt can’t force you to have them.

Last night, I asked crr6 why she favored having the government require me to purchase something I don’t need and don’t want. She answered that someday I might get into a horrendous accident, and as a result taxpayers would have to pay my medical expenses.

Usurpation of state controls, repeal of medical privacy, lack of choice, death panels, health decisions by political appointees who are not doctors, IRS involvement, etc., etc., etc.

The Democrats used “health care” as an excuse to totally control our lives and impose government on every aspect of our lives. All of these provisions in Obamacare which are irrelevant to actual health care never belonged in the bill in the first place: it was a vehicle to sneak through hundreds of things which could never be passed on their own merits, or if our elected representatives bothered to READ THE BILL in the first place!!!

landlines on December 14, 2010 at 11:27 AM

I could trot out the fact that the health care bill also demolishes private lending to students for tuition but then you might crash your car into me and make ProudRino pay for his damages to my car.

Last night, I asked crr6 why she favored having the government require me to purchase something I don’t need and don’t want. She answered that someday I might get into a horrendous accident, and as a result taxpayers would have to pay my medical expenses.

But what are the actuarial chances of that happening?

Del Dolemonte on December 14, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Would you trust the government to figure that out before you’d trust professional insurance actuarials?

This isn’t “insurance” by any dictionary definition of the word. Obamacare is welfare, pure and simple.

Exactly, part of the problem is that insurance has become, in people’s minds, a right which is senseless because it is used to buy a service that is a service for sale….as in, gasp, captialism. Those who do not have insurance feel denied and somehow of a lower class than those who do. It’s nuts but it is also a ready made situation or crises to be exploited in true Cloward Piven fashion which is what the intent is here, imo.
The powers that be in the Obama administration don’t need logic or the Constitution they are on a roll.

His social security reforms would be unconstitutional according to you guys.

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 11:26 AM

Yes, it would be because SS is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! The framers made sure the constitution was framed to limit the powers of a central govt. May I suugets you educate yourself on the arguments made during raification 10th vs supremacy clause should explain why the framers and states did not want an out of control central govt. Also, look up the 3 headed eagle which will explain the checks and balances written into the constitution.

all you have to do to fix the healthcare crisis is make it legal for hospital’s to decline care fo individuals base d on having insurance or not.

It’s called tough love. If you can not pay die in the street. The amount of people signing up for health insurance the day after this happens would overwhelm the ability of insurance companies to handle.

There is a lot of limiting language in there as well, and that should be followed, but to say the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the role of federal government is 100% wrong.

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 11:16 AM

Bull and Crap. That’s only true if you ignore the Ninth and Tenth Amendments as all statists do. Then you can make the tyrannical claim that the Federal Government’s powers are not enumerated and limited, just our individual rights.

think where we would be without Alito and Roberts, especially when bongocare reaches the SC

that might be worth considering

Sonosam on December 14, 2010 at 11:35 AM

I give Bush credit for his SCOTUS picks much better than his father on that score. but most of his other stuff was statist in its approach (I equate crony capitalism with statism). Bush was not one to deregulate likr Reagan. his homeland security admin was a classic statist answer to a problem. His SS reform was crony capitalism writ large, his tax cuts while good did nothign to address cutting gov or lessening their mandates on the people. there are many other examples. I think bush was 10 times better than Obama but the lesser of two evils is still evil in my book……

That’s only true if you ignore the Ninth and Tenth Amendments as all statists do.

No it’s not. The primary purpose of the Constitution was to strengthen the federal government. One of the other purposes was to limit the role of that federal government. So there is a great deal of limiting language in the document, but it’s historically inaccurate to say that the sole purpose or the primary purpose of the document is to limit the federal government.

Really logic ought to dictate that as well, since if the 9th and 10th Amendments were so crucial to the Constitution, why weren’t they passed in the original Constitution?

Then you can make the tyrannical claim that the Federal Government’s powers are not enumerated and limited, just our individual rights.

yes the SCOTUS has a long history of making people slaves to government:

It was a full and elaborate statement of the views of the Court. They have decided the following important points:

First – Negroes, whether slaves or free, that is, men of the African race, are not citizens of the United States by the Constitution.

Second – The Ordinance of 1787 had no independent constitutional force or legal effect subsequently to the adoption of the Constitution, and could not operate of itself to confer freedom or citizenship within the Northwest Territory on negroes not citizens by the Constitution

Really logic ought to dictate that as well, since if the 9th and 10th Amendments were so crucial to the Constitution, why weren’t they passed in the original Constitution?

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Because the framers didn’t think them necessary since, to them, the rights enshrined in our bill of rights were self-evident. There was a cadre of Constitutional Conventionalists who toyed with the idea and then decided that enumerating people’s rights (as opposed to state and federal powers) would limit those rights unnecessarily, just as enumerating federal powers was a bid to limit them.

In the end, a promise to separately consider a bill of rights was necessary in order to pass the Constitutional Convention’s self-imposed ratification rules for the original document as well. And it was concern over the possible apeparance of limitation of rights that ultimately led to the 9th and 10th amendments being appended to the other eight. In essence, they mean no more or less than:

If we don’t say the federal government can do it, then they can’t. If we don’t say the states can’t do it, then they can.

It’s called tough love. If you can not pay die in the street. The amount of people signing up for health insurance the day after this happens would overwhelm the ability of insurance companies to handle.

HEY GENIUS you posted a case from 1937 which was a SCOTUS controlled by FDR and his ilk 2 yrs after SS was enacted. FDR did pretty much what OBAMA and the dems did to stuff the HC bill down our throats. The Supreme Court, in 1937, was simply looking for a way to expand federal power and escape FDR’s threat to restructure the Court. Since the Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the constitutional authority to define the extent of the powers granted to the federal government or amend the Constitution. In sustaining Social Security under the general welfare provision, the Court failed to perform a basic function. It neglected to establish the constitutional meaning of the words contained therein. A review of a standard dictionary shows that the words “general” and “welfare” are defined as follows:

“General. 1: involving or applicable to the whole. 2: involving, relating to, or applicable to every member of a class, kind or group.”

“Welfare. 1: the state of doing well, esp. in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being or prosperity.”

The word welfare is derived from the words “well” and “fare” and means a “state of faring well” or “well being.” When the Framers used the word welfare in the Constitution, they were using it in this context. They were not referring to government social aid programs like Social Security. These programs were virtually unknown to the Framers and would have been classified, in the language of the day, as a form of “poor relief.” Thus, the common definition of the general welfare phrase, as it was used in the Constitution, was “the whole group’s well being.”
If the federal government did not have the constitutional authority to institute domestic social aid programs like Social Security in 1833, as acknowledged by Justice Story, and did not have the authority in 1930, as acknowledged by President Roosevelt, then how could Congress have acquired this power in 1935? Since the Constitution had not been amended, there can only be one conclusion. The federal government, acting through its political appointees in the Supreme Court, simply opened the door for a new interpretation of the general welfare provision that deleted words, changed the meaning of the words, and was absent of the basic limitations incorporated into the Constitution by the Founders. In short, the Court re-wrote the Constitution from the bench and handed Congress almost unlimited power to tax and spend so long as it cites the general welfare provision as the constitutional authority for the legislation.

Really logic ought to dictate that as well, since if the 9th and 10th Amendments were so crucial to the Constitution, why weren’t they passed in the original Constitution?

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 11:40 AM

I don’t believe you actually made the above argument. It equally applies to amendments 1 – 8. Do you honestly believe that they weren’t crucial to the passing of the constitution.

I don’t claim to be an expert in history but it is my understanding from studying it that it was highly unlikely that the constitution would have passed without the protections provided by the first 10 amendments.

I don’t claim to be an expert in history but it is my understanding from studying it that it was highly unlikely that the constitution would have passed without the protections provided by the first 10 amendments.

chemman on December 14, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Check out my post at:

gryphon202 on December 14, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Since some apparently missed it, it bears repeating:

The constitutional conventionalists enumerated the powers of the federal government in order to limit them. They actively sought to avoid enumerating people’s rights so as to not limit them. The bill of rights was a condition of ratification by enough of the states to make it a make-or-break deal.

Pretty much. The Supreme Court interprets the law. I don’t agree with Roe v. Wade, but it is most assuredly Constitutional, if and until it gets overturned.

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Again, NOT constitutional. This is one of the worst pieces of legislation written by one of our most liberal courts in the history of the US. The 1973 United States Supreme Court (USSC) decisions in Roe v. Wade[1] and Doe v. Bolton[2] are without question the most egregiously unconstitutional decisions of all time. These decisions turned the USSC into the national abortion control board, and stripped the ability of elected legislators to regulate this new “right” with the notoriously broad definition of “health” in Doe.

While the Constitution does not contain an express “right to privacy,” and certainly does not contain a “right to abortion,” the USSC created this “right” in cases concerning contraception (i.e. Griswold v. Connecticut,[3]) and expanded it to include the “right to abortion” in Roe v. Wade. The Court held that the decision to have an abortion was part of the right to privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Furthermore, while one could argue that our country has a history of protecting individuals’ privacy, our country clearly does not have a longstanding tradition of protecting abortion rights. Therefore, it is disingenuous to argue that the authors of the 14th Amendment intended to include within the amendment a fundamental right to abortion. Instead, the Court unabashedly made the policy decision that unborn children have no rights, under the guise of protecting women’s rights.

I don’t believe you actually made the above argument. It equally applies to amendments 1 – 8. Do you honestly believe that they weren’t crucial to the passing of the constitution.

I don’t claim to be an expert in history but it is my understanding from studying it that it was highly unlikely that the constitution would have passed without the protections provided by the first 10 amendments.

chemman on December 14, 2010 at 11:53 AM

I think that’s true, I think you’re missing the context of the argument – I initially said, “One of the reasons for Constitution is to limit the power of the federal government,” and I guess that wasn’t sufficiently rabid enough of a response, and I got a bevy of “NO IT’S THE SOLE REASON FOR TEH CONSTITUTION IS TO LIMIT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMETN!?!? HELLO 10TH AMENDMENT WUT” or something to that effect, and I was just pointing out that, if it were in fact the “sole” reason, or the most important reason, then the controlling limiting principle would not be in an amendment but explicitly stated in the preamble, and the Constitution would not have granted substantially more power to the federal government than the preceding governing document did.

The constitutional conventionalists enumerated the powers of the federal government in order to limit them. They actively sought to avoid enumerating people’s rights so as to not limit them. The bill of rights was a condition of ratification by enough of the states to make it a make-or-break deal.

No, but you did ask why the bill of rights wasn’t contained in the original document. I explained to you why it wasn’t. Was that a rhetorical question, or do you still think that the constitution was all about enhancing the power of government at the expense of the people?

Yes, the strawman argument you constructed to argue against was indeed, “weak tea.” Did you enjoy that epic takedown of an argument that I didn’t make? That must be so much fun for you.

Proud Rino on December 14, 2010 at 12:01 PM

You certainly implied it with your “the constitution enhanced the powers of the articles of confederation” drivel. That was true on its face, but the constitutional convention didn’t meet to sh*t-can the articles. It originally met to revise them, and then found them to be beyond repair.

The conventionalists were concerned with giving the federal goverment no more power than it needed to maintain a cohesive unity among the states. That’s why we’re the United States of America and not the American Confederation of Independent States.

The purpose of auto insurance is to protect property and to prove financial responsibility of the operator. Since you’re operating this giant metal device (err, fiberglass?) filled with highly combustible fuel, it makes sense for STATES to mandate some sort of financially based requirement. (I can’t believe I’m making the case for auto insurance!) The difference is, however, my personal health is none of the gov’ts business! Are they really making this argument? I could sue these clowns right now for implying I live for gov’ts sake.